BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE

Dated this the  30^TH March 2015

PRESENT

     SMT. ASHA SHETTY   :   HON’BLE PRESIDENT

                   SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR       :   MEMBER                                         

COMPLAINT NO.400/2014

(Admitted on 18.10.2014)

Sri S.K. Ullal (Suresh Karkera Ullal),

S/o Late Sanjeeva Suvarana,

Aged about 57 years,

Residing at C3, III Floor,

Vaishali Apartments,
Mannagudda,

Mangalore- 575 003.                       …….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for Complainant: Sri  Pradeep Kumar)

          VERSUS

Durgamba Motors,

City Plaza,

Kudmul Ranga Rao Road,

Mangalore-575 003.

Represented by its Managing Director,

Sri Sadananda Chatra.              ……OPPOSITE PARTY

(Opposite Party:  Exparte)

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT

SMT. ASHA SHETTY:

I.      1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service as against the Opposite Party claiming certain reliefs.

The brief facts of the case are as under:

The complainant stated that, his son was the student of N.I.E., Mysore and the Complainant booked a parcel containing valuable items worth Rs.3,500/- as per way bill No.638/68110 on 11.3.2014 with the Opposite Party so as to deliver it to the complainant’s son Sachin through the Opposite Party’s office at Mysore near K.S.R.T.C. Bus Stand.  While booking the said consignment the Opposite party have received a sum of Rs.30/- as freight charges undertaken to deliver the same on the next day morning.

It is stated that on 12.3.2014 at about 9.00 a.m., when the complainant’s son Sachin Suresh approached Opposite Party’s Mysore office near KSRTC Bus Stand, they have informed that the said parcel was not reached them and they asked him to come in the evening.  It is stated that  the Complainant’s son visited Opposite Party‘s office several time but the parcel was not delivered rather they acted very rudely.  It is stated that the Opposite Party’s bound to deliver the parcel as undertaken by them but not delivered till this date which amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.  Hence the complainant filed the above complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Party to deliver the consignment sent under way bill No.638/6810 dated 11.3.2014 to the complainant/refund of value of item for a sum of Rs.3,500/- along with compensation and cost of the proceedings.

II.     1. Version notice served to the Opposite Party by R.P.A.D. Opposite Party inspite receiving version notice not appeared nor represented the case till this date. Hence Opposite Party placed exparte and postal acknowledgement marked as Court Doc.No.1.

III.    1.  In support of the complaint, Sri Suresh Karkera Ullal (CW1) – Complainant filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and produced Ex. C1 to C5. Opposite Party placed exparte.

In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

1. Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service?

2. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

3. What order?

                We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:

                                Point No.(i): Affirmative.

                                Points No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.      

REASONS

IV.    1.  POINTS NO. (i) TO (iii):

In order to substantiate averments made in the complaint filed affidavit in support of documents, wherein, the Ex.C1 is the parcel/luggage booking receipt i.e. way bill no. 638/68110 dated 11.3.2014 issued by the Opposite Party.  Ex. C2 is the complaint lodged before the Kadri P.S. on behalf of the Complainant and Ex. C3 is the legal notice dated 28.3.2014 issued by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties along with Acknowledgment and the Ex.C5  is the tax invoice receipt which contains two shirts worth Rs.2,936/- with vat i.e.. Rs.3,098/-.  The above documents clearly reveals that the Complainant has sent a parcel worth Rs.3,098/- through the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party inturn received a consideration from the Complainant and undertaken to deliver the parcel/consignment to the addressee.  When that being so, it is the obligation on the part of the Opposite Party to deliver the consignment to the given address.  But in the present case, the Opposite Party failed to deliver the parcel/luggage under taken to deliver to the addressee till this date amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.

Apart from the above we further observed that the Opposite Party inspite of receiving version notice not appeared nor contested the case.  The entire material evidence produced by the Complainant are not contradicted nor controverted.  Hence which requires no further proof.

Under the above circumstances, we hold that the service rendered by the Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency in service and they are liable to pay the damage  as well as damages under the Consumer Protection Act to the Complainant.

By considering the above aspects, we hereby direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs.3098/- towards the cost of the consignment i.e as per Ex.C5 and also pay Rs.5,000/- as damages for the inconvenience and harassment caused to the Complainant and further pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.

        In the result, we pass the following:-     

ORDER

The complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party i.e. Durgamba Motors represented by its Managing Director shall pay Rs.3,098/- (Rupees Three thousand ninety eight only) to the complainant. Further pay Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees Five Thousand only) as damages and also pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.

In case of failure to pay the above mentioned amount within the stipulated time, the Opposite Party is directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the above said total amount from the date of failure till the date of payment.

The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties and therefore the file be consigned to record.

(Page No.1 to 7 dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 30^th  day of March  2015)

                    PRESIDENT                         MEMBER

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1 – Mr.Suresh Karkera Ullal (S.K. Ullal ) – Complainant.

Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex C1: 11.3.2014: Parcel/Luggage Booking receipt way Bill No.638/68110.

Ex C2: 14.3.2014: Police Complaint.

Ex C3: 28.3.2014: Office copy of the Lawyer’s Notice:

Ex C4: Postal Acknowledgments (2 in No.s).

Ex C5: 6.3.2014: Purchase Bill.

COURT DOCUMENT

Doc.No.1: Postal Acknowledgment.

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

- Nil -

Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party:       

- Nil -

Dated:30.3.2015                             PRESIDENT